GW is an unit of power. GWh is an unit of energy.
The question how much GWs solar plants produce per day is like asking how much horse power produces a petroleum engine per day.
Global Warming is not caused only by CO2 emissions. Every joule of thermal energy we use, rises further the temperature. Even the "greenest" energy sources heat the planet, so does nuclear fusion.
This means that for each pixel in the image, they can determine what kind of atom is being measured. So they can generate false-color maps of atomic identity. That's interesting. I guess this microscope will have lots of applications. At first thought - in semiconductors production, carbon allotropes and God knows where else.
Yes, 500k dollars are not enough for a space mission but are a reasonable amount to spend for better PR of your projects. As far as I know NASA has plans to put telescopes on Moon from 1997, and if it had the money for that, I guess it wouldn't need that much public attention.
As for telescope arrays, wait a minute.. I think I said the same thing. Do not make me argue with myself.:)
Yes, I bothered to read the article and wrote that the only reasonable radio telescope in space is the big one. If you put your satellite dish on Moon it would not get better results than in an average school lab telescope, no matter that it will face no ionosphere. The only profit from small telescopes in space is that they can make better-quality optical images. This cannot be improved by larger size of the ground based ones. Another useful application of small radio telescopes is for simultaneous observations from Earth and from somewhere-in-space. This greatly increases the speed of data collection and the precision of results. As I know ground radio telescopes are already connected in a network for this purpose, but if we have even your satellite dish 200 000 miles away from Earth, wow, we might see the curvature of the Universe:))
OK, but why radio-telescopes and not simply optical? If NASA does not need true-color images it is not needed to send any telescope in space, unless it is bigger than Arecibo. Or may be they plan to make simultaneous observations from Earth and Moon?
I guess NASA is again short in money and needs some PR to get bigger budget.
This might be because the usual vision of an open source developer is an teenager with unshaved beard and long hair OR a middle aged man that had the same outlook when he was younger.
Exactly! And why not factories or solar plants orbiting around Earth and even artificial ring(s)? This would solve most of the problems with pollution and energy demands. Securing cyberspace is not a real challenge, it could be so if we had to secure 20th century computers from 21st c. hackers.:)
Self-sustain colonies outside Earth are one-time investment with endless return. Most of the asteroids and little moons have no atmosphere and very low gravity and transporting resources from them to Earth will be very cheap.
My point was about the liquid fuels. I gave the example with the gasoline because I don't know how much hydrogen a hybrid car will need to run 250 miles.:)
But using this source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(electricity) I calculated that a car with 52 hp power engine, will need approximately 500 kilograms of batteries to pass that distance, which in my opinion is far less than the weight of the needed hydrogen and its container (which for sure will be heavy).
Sorry for my bad English, I use it rarely.
Yes electricity is pure energy and has much more applications than hydrogen. But unlike liquid fuels, it is very difficult to store it. Imagine how much the batteries for a car would weight, if they have to provide energy for 250 miles long trip, and compare this number with 10 gallons of gasoline.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this GWs produced per hour? per day? per year?
GW is an unit of power. GWh is an unit of energy. The question how much GWs solar plants produce per day is like asking how much horse power produces a petroleum engine per day.
Global Warming is not caused only by CO2 emissions. Every joule of thermal energy we use, rises further the temperature. Even the "greenest" energy sources heat the planet, so does nuclear fusion.
Black holes do exist, I've seen one!
I guess in 3 years scientists will be researching bacteria, that eats the pizza, to clear the pollution that it will cause meanwhile
Save yourselves!
Yep, Flash is a crime against humanity. :)
I guess we will watch Jurassic Park 4 live. :)
OK. I agree. From this point the debate becomes pointless.
Gosh, what an alpha male reaction!
.. I think I said the same thing. Do not make me argue with myself. :)
Yes, 500k dollars are not enough for a space mission but are a reasonable amount to spend for better PR of your projects. As far as I know NASA has plans to put telescopes on Moon from 1997, and if it had the money for that, I guess it wouldn't need that much public attention. As for telescope arrays, wait a minute
Yes, I bothered to read the article and wrote that the only reasonable radio telescope in space is the big one. If you put your satellite dish on Moon it would not get better results than in an average school lab telescope, no matter that it will face no ionosphere. The only profit from small telescopes in space is that they can make better-quality optical images. This cannot be improved by larger size of the ground based ones. :))
Another useful application of small radio telescopes is for simultaneous observations from Earth and from somewhere-in-space. This greatly increases the speed of data collection and the precision of results. As I know ground radio telescopes are already connected in a network for this purpose, but if we have even your satellite dish 200 000 miles away from Earth, wow, we might see the curvature of the Universe
Actually The Moon has an owner and his name Dennis Hope. http://www.scifidimensions.com/Feb01/dennishope.htm
OK, but why radio-telescopes and not simply optical? If NASA does not need true-color images it is not needed to send any telescope in space, unless it is bigger than Arecibo. Or may be they plan to make simultaneous observations from Earth and Moon? I guess NASA is again short in money and needs some PR to get bigger budget.
This might be because the usual vision of an open source developer is an teenager with unshaved beard and long hair OR a middle aged man that had the same outlook when he was younger.
I didn't know that CEO of Mozilla is a woman. :)
Exactly! And why not factories or solar plants orbiting around Earth and even artificial ring(s)? This would solve most of the problems with pollution and energy demands. Securing cyberspace is not a real challenge, it could be so if we had to secure 20th century computers from 21st c. hackers. :)
Self-sustain colonies outside Earth are one-time investment with endless return. Most of the asteroids and little moons have no atmosphere and very low gravity and transporting resources from them to Earth will be very cheap.
My point was about the liquid fuels. I gave the example with the gasoline because I don't know how much hydrogen a hybrid car will need to run 250 miles. :)
But using this source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(electricity) I calculated that a car with 52 hp power engine, will need approximately 500 kilograms of batteries to pass that distance, which in my opinion is far less than the weight of the needed hydrogen and its container (which for sure will be heavy).
Sorry for my bad English, I use it rarely.
Yes electricity is pure energy and has much more applications than hydrogen. But unlike liquid fuels, it is very difficult to store it. Imagine how much the batteries for a car would weight, if they have to provide energy for 250 miles long trip, and compare this number with 10 gallons of gasoline.
I agree, the palettes are very useful. There are lots of websites that can help and I recommend this one. http://colorsontheweb.com/colorwizard.asp